Culdcept Saga

[FuryFox]

Hells yeah. Unfortunately, I bought mine with a US Amazon credit, and sent it to my brother. I was just going to wait for him to pass it on when I visit Seattle later this month, but I really hate getting behind everyone else in these sort of "collection" games. I'll probably break down and pay him to send it to me as soon as he gets it : /

However, I am still OFFICIALLY disappointed in how little work they seemed to put into this revision. It's pretty sloppy and lackluster all around, and the original was already sort-of a budget title. I really hope the demo was misleading, and that the full game will surprise me.

[bVork]

I'm definitely getting this. I love videogame boardgames, for some reason. I bought Catan and was going to buy Carcassonne.

The interface is teh stupid and there are tons of issues with the way things are described, but I think it'll be great once I get a handle on everything.

[FuryFox]

Wow, crappy review at IGN. 6.5. Although, from the writing, I'm not exactly sure what the reviewer was expecting from the game. Also, he criticizes things that the games is balanced around, like that everyone can see what's in your hand during your turn. It's like criticizing Halo for having easy access to grenades and melee. Sure you could change it, but then it would need to be totally rebalanced, and end up a different game. He also criticizes rarer cards having more particular requirements and attributes, but not in a way that makes he think he understands advanced deckbuilding.

One thing I like about Culdcept is that aren't many obsolete cards. In every element type there's 1 or 2 cards that are just flat out common, vanilla cards that you start with, and eventually replace with something better. But overall, more powerful cards are balanced by their costs, requirements, and effects from their lesser cousins. They're harder to play, but your overall control of the game is greater when they synergize within your deck. That's the whole point and like, iunno, half the gameplay. Collecting different cards and coming up with new decks.

He also says, "why not play a real card game instead"? Well, first, it must be compared to a collectible card game (Magic, Pokemon, Warcraft), and not like, any of the hundreds of card games you can play with a standard deck. I'm going to compare Culdcept to the World of Warcraft CCG, since I play that competitively.

World of Warcraft CCG (and most likely, other CCGs)

+ really deep
+ trading is easy and there is a strong secondary market ($$)
+ local tournaments get you out and meeting people
+ national/international events with big payouts

- really expensive (if you want to play competitively). I've spent hundreds of dollars on cards and entrance fees, and I'm relatively casual
- extremely time (and space) consuming to organize thousands of cards and sort them for deckbuilding
- the people you meet playing are typically disgusting, annoying, anti-social nerds
- steep difficulty curve to new players, very complex rules
- difficult to find people to play with
- designed primarily for 1-on-1 play, although other formats exist
- power creep makes certain older cards obsolete
- no official online play (hacky 3rd party setups available)

...compared to Culdcept

+ easy to play; certain degree of luck gives newbies a chance.
+ boardgame structure and visual framework
+ computer handles all the math, markers, tokens, shuffling, etc.
+ built-in organization, sorting, and deckbuilding options
+ cheap! Just $40 gives you access to every card in the game
+ facilitates 1-4 players
+ online play

- luck aspect bothers some people
- game is relatively simple
- cards have no value

...now, it's not the exact same thing, but I think Culdcept compares favorably to all the headaches associated with actual CCG playing. The reviewer goes off about having to learn all the rules, but I've had several non-gamers join and learn the basic game in 15-20 minutes. Team-based play is great too, and is something girlfriends and such enjoy (my g/f hates the 1on1 "screw the other player over" mentality of WoW CCG).

Geez this is getting out of hand and long. ANYWAY 6.5 is a terrible score, but I don't think the reviewer has the right perspective. Still, that and the demo don't leave me terribly optimistic.




Son Ascetic is a terrible card.

[sleeve]

8.0, according to 1up.

I can't wait to make up a bunch of crazy new decks.

[FuryFox]

That review mentions not being able to see the other players' cards when playing online. I'm not sure what to think of that. It'll definitely make the game more boring when you're waiting on their turn. I never found a lack of mind games when everyone was able to see what everyone else was playing...keeping track of each other's hands was just part of the game. Also, in if/or battle situations, bluffing to make people waste items was a big part of it, and wouldn't really work if you couldn't their hands.

[sleeve]

That review mentions not being able to see the other players' cards when playing online. I'm not sure what to think of that.

Where did you read that? I just see this (emphasis added):

Online play is the perfect companion to such a multiplayer-reliant experience though; up to four Cepters (Culdcept's term for the card players) can compete, with any mix of human and A.I. characters, in alliances or not, online or locally. Playing -- and getting thwomped by -- the A.I. is a great way to build up your card library, but the true test of your mettle lies in the libraries and skills of other Cepters. It's a little disappointing having no option to not see your opponent's cards (apparently this was done to encourage playing with people's minds, like Japanese Chess...we'll have to take their word on that one, as we don't know what that is), but you can always play a (perhaps confusingly-named) Blind Match to truly level the field, where both players are given a fresh deck of randomly chosen cards to compete with.

Sounds like ordinary Culdcept to me.

[SpoDaddy]

Anyone know if this is a tiny print run?

[FuryFox]

Oh, you think it just means you can't look through their decks?

[Mikhal]

Sleeve was saying that you can see the opponent's cards while playing online. Note the double negatives in the quote. The reviewer wanted an option where you can't see each other's hands, but it isn't offered.

[FuryFox]

lol so it does. I must have read it 3 times, and always skipped the double negative. It should have been written differently, but my bad still. Culdcept would be really messed up with hidden hands. However, random deck mode sounds pretty fun for casual games, it's gotten to the point where my g/f and I just make weird theme decks anyway, trying to win with the most outrageous tactic.